findings of the jury required a different result:
(a) As distinguished from the holding in Walters v. Dunlap, supra, the lessor's (owner's) business was not soley the leasing of trucks. He was a carrier on his own account, using this same equipment despite the exclusive lease, hauling exempt commodities under the business name of Western Flour Company. The extent of this use of the vehicle was shown by the driver's testimony that on about 90% of his return trips to the Pittsburgh terminal he hauled grain for the Western Flour Company account.
(b) The B & P terminal in the Pittsburgh area was actually the owner-lessor's terminal, from which the truck would be dispatched in the service of other carriers, i.e. Kaplan, a certificate carrier, or Western Flour Co., an exempt carrier, as well as for B & P.
(c) The same truck was also under an exclusive lease to Kaplan Trucking Company, a certificate carrier, and was frequently used in the service of this company.
(d) While the B & P decal was on the outside of the truck at the time of the accident, the truck also carried with it the decals of Kaplan and Western Flour.
(e) While the driver noted in his log book that he was on B & P service at the time of the accident, he regularly carried three log books in the truck, for B & P, for Kaplan, and for Western Flour.
(f) The owner-lessor and the driver received no compensation from B & P for a return trip to its Pittsburgh terminal after making a delivery of B & P cargo.
(g) There were few return trips to Pittsburgh which carried B & P or Kaplan shipments.
(h) The driver would receive orders from Sustrick before departing from the Pittsburgh terminal on what shipment he would pick up after delivering the B & P shipment.
The defendants argue that the public policy of imposing liability on the certified common carrier requires that liability must be imposed upon the lessee. See Mellon Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Sophie Lines, Inc., supra. However, the public policy, and its statutory and regulatory provisions, are designed for the protection of the public and the public interest has been served by the settlement of the personal injury claim here by Allstate, the insurer for B & P. As was held in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 368 F.2d 121 (3rd Circ. 1966):
"* * * this case does not involve a question of implementing lease provisions which are required for the protection of the public. Rather we are concerned with responsibility as between insurance carriers." (p. 125).